In Spanish: Código ético y declaración de buenas prácticas
Disputatio. Bulletin of Philosophical Research/ Boletín de Investigación Filosófica (Madrid, ISSN: 2254-0601) is an academic publication that publishes philosophical writings with a firm commitment to compliance with ethical standards and good practices of scientific and academic publications. Therefore, this Code of Ethics and Declaration of Good Practices has been adopted, based on the principles of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and operates according to COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Besides, as a publication that follows the Publication Integrity & Ethics Guidelines and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ), it is expected that authors, reviewers and editors follow the guidelines of the best practices on ethical conduct contained in them.
In general, we consider as a basic principle that the falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including the duplicate publication of the work of authors without due citation, and the misappropriation of other’s work are unacceptable practices. Cases of ethical misconduct will be treated according to the COPE’s guidelines.
All parties involved in the publication (authors, editors, reviewers, the people responsible for the Editorial Board, and Studia Humanitatis-University of Salamanca, as the publishing entity) must accept and respect the principles contained in this document. For full details on the principles of good practice, you should consult the four documents listed above and the COPE’s Core Practices.
1. Publication and authorship
1.1. Acknowledgement of sources, references and plagiarism
All previously published works that have been used must be duly cited to avoid their possibly fraudulent use. References should follow the guidelines and methods of citation established by Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin. Authors commit to respecting this rule and editors and reviewers should also be attentive to its fulfilment.
1.2. Financial support
Support received from any source of funding, whether for the preparation of manuscripts by the authors or for the magazine itself, must be duly recognised in the publication.
1.3. Fraudulent data
The data or facts in the manuscript will be duly referenced and treated with academic rigour, with sources properly cited. Any statement or fact presented in a way that is fraudulent or imprecise constitutes unacceptable behaviour for the publication. Authors commit to respecting this rule and editors and reviewers should also be attentive to its fulfilment.
1.4. Duplication, redundancy or concurrence of the publications
Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to different publications constitutes unacceptable behaviour. The authors (see point 4.3 of the authors’ obligations) will refrain from publishing any other article or manuscript that essentially reproduces the same conclusions as the research edited and published by Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin.
2. Editors’ Obligations
2.1. Editorial decisions
Editors should take care to guarantee the highest scientific and academic quality of the articles published in Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin.
Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted are published in Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin and are accountable for everything published in the magazine. When taking the decision to publish, editors should be guided by the magazine’s publication policies as well as the legal requirements relating to libel, author’s rights, copyright and plagiarism.
Editors are responsible for evaluating the manuscripts based on their intellectual content (the importance of the article, its originality, clarity and the relevance of the subject of study to the magazine). The race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, origin, citizenship or political orientation of the author(s) should under no circumstances influence the decision.
Editors undertake to ensure that advertising and any other commercial profit does not affect the impartiality of editorial decisions.
If, when checking the originality of the manuscript (searching for the author’s CV, the article’s title and similar research findings), editors suspect that it does not fulfil the legal requirements relating to libel, author’s rights, copyright or plagiarism, they should inform the author(s). Editors should wait for the author(s) to respond before taking any decision on the matter. If editors are not satisfied with the reply given by the author(s), or if one does not arrive, they may decide to reject the article after approval of the decision by the Editorial Board of Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin.
Other editors will be not be permitted to change decisions on the publication of the manuscripts submitted unless they identify relevant problems in the decision-making process undertaken.
2.2. Manuscript revision
Editors should publish a description of the peer review process in order to inform authors of the manuscripts submitted for consideration of both the details of the process itself and the criteria to be used by the reviewers when assessing a piece of work for publication.
Editors may reject a manuscript without submitting it for peer review if it does not fulfil the formal requirements or, exclusively, due to the quality of its academic content or its inconsistency with the subjects of interest established by the editorial line of the magazine.
Editors will inform authors what is expected of them and the criteria for evaluating their manuscripts. Along with these guidelines they will attach this Code of Ethics and Statement of Best Practices.
Editors will protect the identity of the reviewers notwithstanding the fact that reviewers may wish to make their own identity and role public.
Editors will check the comments made by the reviewer(s) in their report in order to delete any that may be considered excessively harsh or offensive.
Editors may suggest modifications of the manuscripts to the author(s), based on the reports of the reviewer(s) or strictly editorial criteria.
2.3. Editorial confidentiality
Neither the editors nor any of the editorial staff will disclose the content or any other information relating to the manuscripts submitted for consideration other than to the author(s) themselves, reviewers, potential reviewers and, in certain circumstances, the members of the publication’s Editorial Board.
Editors will ensure that reviewers respect their obligations relating to the confidentiality of the work as described in this Code of Ethics and Statement of Best Practices.
2.4. Disclosure, conflicts of interest and research
Editors shall withdraw or refrain from any evaluation or other editorial process involving manuscripts in which a conflict of interest may arise due to their competitive, collaborative or any other kind of relationship or connection with any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript. In such cases, the editors in question should ask other co-editors, associate editors or the Editorial Board to perform the duties relating to their role.
Editors may not use rejected articles or the material contained within them without the prior authorisation of the author.
3. Reviewers’ obligations
3.1. Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewers help the editors make editorial decisions and, through the communication between the editors and the author(s), can help the author(s) improve their manuscript.
3.2. Principle of suitability and promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to carry out the review of the academic research in question or who know that they cannot carry out the review within the agreed time period should inform the editors as promptly as possible so that new reviewers may be sought.
3.3. Confidentiality
Reviewers agree not to know the identity of the author of the text they review. If the reviewer feels unable to fulfil this requirement they should immediately inform the editors so that alternative reviewers may be sought.
Reviewers will not divulge the content or any other information relating to the manuscripts submitted for consideration, with the exception of communication with the editors, and will treat the content as confidential.
3.4. Standards of objectivity
Reviewers will make their revisions objectively, expressing them in a clear manner and arguing their opinion on the manuscript. The reviewers’ final objective is to provide support to the editors in improving the text in terms of scientific quality and editorial decisions.
Reviewers shall refrain, in all circumstances, from including any kind of personal criticism of the author(s) in their revisions.
Reviewers will receive guidelines on their work from the editors, specifying what is expected of them and what their criteria for assessing the manuscripts should be. This Code of Ethics and Statement of Best Practices should be attached.
3.5. Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify the relevant publications that are not cited by the author(s) of the manuscript. Any comment relating to the prior publication of any of the arguments presented by the author(s) must be accompanied by the reference in question.
Reviewers are required to inform the editors of any indication that the arguments or facts used by the author(s) in the manuscript are substantially similar to or match those in another publication and which might, therefore, make it liable not to fulfil the legal requirements relating to author’s rights, copyright and plagiarism.
3.6. Conflicts of interest and research
Reviewers shall withdraw or refrain from the review of any manuscript with which they may have a conflict of interest due to their competitive, collaborative or any other kind of relationship or connection with any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript. In such cases, the reviewers in question must promptly inform the editors so that alternative reviewers may be sought.
Reviewers may not, in any case, make use of the articles in the review process, those that have been rejected, or the material contained within them.
Reviewers agree to be bound by the mechanisms in place to manage any conflict of interest that may arise established by the editors and governed by the principles and processes established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
4. Authors’ obligations
4.1. Manuscript standards
Authors undertake to submit manuscripts that have a precise relationship to the research carried out, objective discussion of its importance and sufficient details and specific references to allow for its academic replication.
The data or facts in the manuscript will be duly referenced and treated with academic rigour, with sources appropriately cited. Any statement or fact presented in a way that is fraudulent or imprecise constitutes unacceptable behaviour.
4.2. Originality, acknowledgement of sources and plagiarism
Authors undertake to ensure that both the research presented in the manuscript and the text itself are original.
Sending a manuscript for consideration that has already been published either in part or in whole in any medium or by any institution is considered unacceptable.
Authors undertake to ensure that the manuscript respects all the standards on referencing and citation specified by the magazine (in the instructions for authors) to avoid any potentially fraudulent use of others’ research.
4.3. Duplication, redundancy or concurrence in the publications
Authors shall refrain from publishing any other article or manuscript that essentially reproduces the same research findings presented in the articles published by Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin. The simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to different publications constitutes unacceptable behaviour.
4.4. Authorship
The authorship of the articles must be attributed to the researchers who have played a substantial role in the design, execution and interpretation of the research on which the article submitted is based. The authors must cite as authors all those who fulfil the above-mentioned criteria.
Authors shall be permitted to recognise the work of those people who, despite having contributed in some way to the research that led to the manuscript, do not fulfil the criteria to be considered authors.
4.5. Conflicts of interest and research
All authors should publish any source of funding used to carry out their research in the manuscript, as well as any other information about potential conflicts of interest that may have influenced the findings or interpretations of what is presented in the manuscript.
4.6. Fundamental errors in the published work
Authors are obliged to inform those responsible for the magazine if they discover the existence of a fundamental error or an inaccuracy in any of their articles published in Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin.
Authors undertake to collaborate with the editors in circumstances that may require a public correction or retraction to be published.
4.7. Commitment to the magazine
Authors agree to participate in the anonymous process of peer review at the request of the editors, provided no conflict of interest exists (according to the descriptions in section 3.6).
5. Editorial ethics
5.1. Academic standards of the manuscript and editorial ethics
In accordance with the above, the Editorial Board will work to ensure that the material published in Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin is of the highest scientific and academic quality, and complies with this Code of Ethics and Statement of Best Practices.
5.2. Corrections and retraction
Editors will promptly correct any published data or information that is identified to be erroneous, misleading or fraudulent after publication. Editors should inform the author(s) of the issue and wait for the author(s) to respond before making any editorial decision. If the editors are not satisfied with the response given by the author(s), or if one does not arrive, they can decide to retract it from the publication after approval of the decision by the Editorial Board of Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin.
Editors will establish the mechanisms of claim and complaint regarding the published content, which is to be available to all. Editors undertake to investigate these accusations and to follow the processes of revision or retraction where necessary.
Editors will be guided by the principles contained in the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when it is necessary to consider the retraction of an article that has appeared in Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin or to publish corrections to it.
5.3. Conflicts of interest and primacy of academic standards
Editors should establish mechanisms for dealing with any possible conflict of interest that may arise and that affects the editors themselves, the authors, reviewers or Editorial Board. These mechanisms will be governed by the principles and processes established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), always ensuring the primacy of academic criteria over others of any nature.